Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic activists in early presidential nominating states say that new controversies swirling around Hillary Rodham Clinton have made them more eager than ever for alternatives in 2016.

The undercurrent of anxiety about Clintons vulnerabilities has grown in recent days with potentially damaging news of foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and the former secretary of states use of private e-mail accounts to conduct official business.

But as they survey the landscape, few Democrats see other credible contenders.

The problem is, theres nobody out there whos not Clinton whos the equivalent of Barack Obama, said Larry Drake, chairman of the Portsmouth Democrats in New Hampshire. He was a fresh face ... and he gave great speeches and he turned out to be electable.

The angst among Democrats offers new evidence that opportunities remain for other candidates despite Clintons commanding lead in early polls. H. Boyd Brown, a member of the Democratic National Committee from South Carolina who supports former Maryland governor Martin OMalley, said Clinton will not wear well as Democrats are exposed to a continuing drumbeat of press scrutiny.

Hillary Clintons private e-mail address that she used while secretary of state reinforces everything people dont like about her, argues The Posts Chris Cillizza, and is very dangerous to her presidential ambitions. (The Washington Post)

Nobody down here wants a coronation, Brown said. We need options. Who knows what could happen. Its always good to have more than one candidate running.

Those arent some tabloid scandals, he said of the Clinton controversies. Those are job-related, national-security-related issues that matter.

[Questions are mounting over Clintons use of a private e-mail account]

As he heads to New Hampshire this weekend, OMalley is accelerating efforts to try to step into that breach. But in South Carolina last weekend and through a spokeswoman this week, OMalley again declined to talk about Clinton or articulate why Democrats who have already lined up behind her should start taking a closer look at him.

See the rest here:
Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative

"This is extremely unusual," House Majority Leader Jim Dunnigan told the House with a raised voice.

But House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, later said Democrats carefully researched rules to ensure the motion is allowed, and had warned Republican leaders they would make it.

After Republicans voted down the motion, Dunnigan asked for and obtained House permission to open a new bill file to allow changing House rules hinting such moves will likely be banned in the future.

Republicans then retreated into a closed caucus, but Dunnigan said that was previously scheduled to discuss the budget and had nothing to do with the Democrats' motion.

Several Republicans said in debate that passing the motion would make committee hearings and votes meaningless.

"We have a process up here that we follow, and that process vets and weeds out both good and bad legislation," said Rep. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi. "If this body really chooses to ignore our processes and bring this back, why did we hold it in committee to begin with?" He said it wastes time with a week left in the session.

But Rep. Becky Edwards, R-North Salt Lake, said, "I think that [for} something of this import, for us to sit on our hands and say we do not have time to debate an issue like this is on the floor is irresponsible and, frankly, it's selfish."

Rep. Patrice Arent, D-Millcreek, said, "There are few bills I have ever seen as important as this bill."

She said the House waives its normal rules all the time. She told members who opposed the motion that "I will never want to hear you trying to make a motion to ever vote down any aspect of the process."

An upset Rep. Brad Dee, R-Ogden, responded, "I'm not going to be threatened on this floor by anyone that tells me what I'm going to do tonight is going to make sure I can't do anything in the future that's within the rules of the House. That is demeaning to all of us."

View post:
Democrats try but fail to bring Healthy Utah to House floor

Democrats, after suffering the indignity of losing their Senate majority in 2014, have high hopes of winning it back in 2016. That is in large part because the political map for Senate elections next year seems to be tilted in their favor, mirroring the GOP-favored battlefield of 2014.

What is more, Democrats expect to benefit from the fact that 2016 is a presidential election year and many of the states hosting marquee Senate contests such as Pennsylvania and Colorado will also be presidential battlegrounds. That is good news for Democrats because the partys key constituencies single women and minorities tend to turn out in much larger numbers for presidential elections than in midterm elections.

Democrats faced a dismal map in the 2014 midterms because they were defending 21 Senate seats while Republicans were defending only 15. Worse still, seven of the Democrats up for re-election were in hostile political territory states that Mitt Romney had won in 2012.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. In 2016, Democrats have only 10 seats to defend, and Republicans have 24 including seven in states that President Barack Obama won twice.

Among the most vulnerable incumbents: GOP Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, according to a preliminary ranking by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Among Democrats, only Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Michael Bennet of Colorado are expected to face competitive races.

With the Senate split 54-46, Democrats need to pick up at least four seats to win a majority (five if Republicans win the White House because the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote in a 50-50 Senate.)

Although Democrats have a much stronger hand than they did in 2014, the map isnt tilted quite as steeply in their favor as it was for Republicans last year. The Democrats who were vulnerable in 2014 were fighting in much more challenging terrain Mark Pryor in deeply conservative Arkansas and Mark Begich in Alaska, for example than the swing states Republicans are fighting on in 2016.

Ron Johnson starts with a better chance of getting re-elected in Wisconsin than Pryor started off with in Arkansas, said Nathan L. Gonzales, an analyst with the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. Arkansas is more red than Wisconsin is blue.

What is more, Republicans in 2014 benefited greatly from a wave of retirements by Democratic senators from conservative states like West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota, which were poised to fall to GOP hands. So far, no Republican has announced his or her retirement, although Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida may quit to run for president.

Read the original here:
Why Democrats Think Theyll Retake the Senate in 2016

The move comes after Democrats, who were upset GOP leaders decided to fast-track the legislation, threatened to block taking up the bill. Democrats fear immediate consideration could disrupt the sensitive talks with Iran that face an important March 24 deadline.

Skeptical the administration can cut a tough deal with Iran, Republicans wanted to act quickly on the bill, which was introduced just last week by the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Republicans hoped to seize on momentum from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's powerful address to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday, in which he urged the U.S. not to accept an agreement with Iran that would leave that country on track to build nuclear weapons in the near future.

The measure is opposed by the Obama administration, which said this week it would veto it. But Democrats, mindful of the White House's objections, have already felt divided on the issue and were critical of what they saw as partisan motives in the decision by Republican House Speaker John Boehner to invited Netanyahu to deliver an address to Congress arguing against the president's policy on Iran.

READ: Iran nuclear talks hit speed bumps

Senate Democratic aides said they believe that disrupting Democratic support for the bill was McConnell's aim all along to again drive a wedge between the two parties on Israel, and make it seem as though Democrats aren't as supportive of the Middle East nation and as tough on national security issues as Republicans.

Though McConnell denied speeding up consideration of the bill for partisan ends, both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill hoping to move forward with the measure told CNN that the move to fast-track the bill had poisoned the well and undermined progress on getting Democrats to sign on.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who sponsored the bill along with Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, penned a letter along Wednesday with 10 fellow Democratic supporters of the bill saying that they would oppose voting on it before March 24.

In a statement Thursday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he was pleased McConnell had backed off his fast-track plan, which Reid charged was motivated by politics.

"Senator McConnell made the right decision by heeding calls from Democrats and Republicans to back off his transparently political move. Protecting Israel and the world from a nuclear-armed Iran is too important of an issue to use in partisan political games," Reid said.

Here is the original post:
McConnell delays vote on Iran bill

Democrats Counter Social Security Proposal: Tax the Rich
The Democrats have a counter Social Security proposal: Tax the rich http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/democrats-social-security-tax-the-rich On the Bonus Sho...

By: David Pakman Show

View original post here:
Democrats Counter Social Security Proposal: Tax the Rich - Video